In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns. Do
you have any better stats?


Why don't you quit guessing, and dig out some facts?

I have looked, but, it is not there or I just did not find it. I have
asked for facts before and I will also ask that if you have any facts,
preferable with references to the sources, I would appreciate them.

You haven't been looking very hard. The FBI maintains all sorts of statistics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
....

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?

So because bad people steal cars and use them to commit crimes, we need to
take cars out of the possession of law-abiding people, eh?

Well, not exactly. In the US we no longer have much use for guns as a
basic need. Hunting, while it a source of food, it is seldom the sole or
even primary reason for hunting. Various forms of target shooting is
enjoyable (yes I have enjoyed target shooting) but the risks to society are
too great in my opinion for the benefits.

You are failing to consider the risks inherent to a disarmed society:
1) The criminal element will always find a way to obtain arms. They can be
stolen from law enforcement or the military, smuggled from overseas, or
manufactured clandestinely. Disarmed law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy
of armed criminals; the police can't be everywhere.
2) A society in which many or most people are armed is safe from foreign
invasion.
3) A society in which many or most people are armed is also same from domestic
tyranny -- the American Revolution is a good example.

How do you feel about removing cars from the hands of those who have
convicted of drunk driving?

The same way I feel about removing firearms from the hands of those who misuse
them in a way that harms or endangers others: wholeheartedly in support.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Oren" wrote in message
...
....

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?

So if somebody steals a gun from its legal owner, it's the *owner* who's the
problem, not the thief? Seems you want to place the blame for crime on
everyone but the criminals committing it. Why do you have such a hard time
placing the blame where it belongs? Does not having more thieves running
around loose, make it easier for things to be stolen?


I don't consider the owner, unless they are negligent (which happens far
too often, but I suspect is a very small percentage of gun owners) to be at
fault. I consider the easy access to guns to be at fault. I believe the
risk associated with wide spread gun ownership to be sufficiently great to
justify restrictions.

You just don't get it.

The problem is NOT with "wide spread gun ownership": the overwhelming majority
of gun owners own them legally, and never misuse them in any fashion.

The problem is with widespread criminal misuse of guns, almost entirely by
those who are not in legal possession thereof.

Laws restricting possession of guns will have no effect on the behavior of
criminals -- who are, by definition, people who don't obey laws. Laws clearly
do not, and cannot, eliminate crime. They only provide a mechanism for
*responding* to crime *after* it has been committed.

I don't consider gun owners bad people.

Then why do you want to take guns away from us, while leaving them in the
hands of criminals?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.